Bug#1107456: marked as done (pre-unblock: uncertainties/3.2.3+really3.2.2-1)
Your message dated Sun, 8 Jun 2025 10:36:15 +0000
with message-id <aEVnn6WQ7k1FhYtG@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#1107456: Acknowledgement (pre-unblock: uncertainties/3.2.3+really3.2.2-1)
has caused the Debian Bug report #1107456,
regarding pre-unblock: uncertainties/3.2.3+really3.2.2-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
1107456: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1107456
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: sanvila@debian.org,cjwatson@debian.org,dparsons@emerall.com
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Hello.
The upload of uncertainties 3.2.3-1 in 2025-05-05 has accidentally
broken several packages, lmfit-py and pymatgen at least.
Because the breakage only happens in unstable, the plan to keep trixie
free of breakage was to not allow uncertainties to propagate to testing.
But yesterday I realized that RC Bug #1107280 in pymatgen ("tries internet
access during build") can't be fixed as far as there is an uncertainties
version which makes the package to FTBFS, as it happens now.
(Not to mention the additional problems in form of trixie-ignore tags
that would involve such strategy).
So: Should we try the route of reverting uncertainties to version 3.2.2 ?
If yes, question for Colin: Can you care about reverting uncertainties?
[ Cc to Colin and also to Drew, who asked about this just a few days ago ].
Thanks.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 08, 2025 at 01:40:40AM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Note: I found a fix for the pymatgen issue (#1106436)
> and I believe reverting uncertainties might be not necessary after all.
I'm going to close this bug, as there isn't really a question for the release
team here. Feel free to reopen it (or file a new one) if you need something
from the release team.
Note that, if you upload a revert to unstable that's basically identical to
the version in testing, there's no need to ask for pre-approval, as there
would be no difference anyway. You might need to ask for an unblock, though.
Thanks!
Ivo
--- End Message ---
Reply to: